Homer Iliad 24.1

analysis of the significance of nóos and néomai in the speech of Diomedes

analysis of the significance of nóos and néomai in the speech of Diomedes

brief analysis of the importance of ‘returning’ in this scene

The agōn ‘competition’, that is, the ‘coming together’ for the sake of competition, is now over. Or, to say it in Greek, the coming-together is now undone, as expressed by the verb luein ‘undo’. Now all the participants disperse, returning to their beached ships. See the comment on I.23.257–258.

The Iliad ends with the funeral of Hector, not of Achilles. And it is Hector, not Achilles, who is lamented at the end. But it is Achilles who makes it all happen, since he has transcended his rage and has shown mercy to an old father. The tears of Priam had made Achilles think of his own old father, of his own ancestors—and of Patroklos, who embodied the glories of the ancestors. Achilles was looking bad at the beginning of Iliad 23 and even at the beginning of Iliad 24, but he looks very good by the time Iliad 24 comes to a close.

Mourners lament as Hector’s corpse is laid out in preparation for the funeral that closes Iliad Rhapsody 24. Copperplate etching (1795) by Tommaso Piroli, after a drawing (1793) by John Flaxman. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

While the others sleep, Achilles is awake and restless, and he sorely misses Patroklos, as expressed by the verb potheîn ‘long for’. This verb potheîn ‘long for’, like the noun pothē ‘longing’, evokes the feelings of those who worship cult heroes: see especially the comment on I.17.685–690.

In these four verses, there is a compressed narration of what Achilles does over and over again during a sleepless night. He harnesses his chariot and drives it around the tomb of Patroklos three times while dragging the corpse of Hector. The tomb is called the sēma at I.24.16. The Master Narrator states here that this tomb belongs to Patroklos, as if the ultimate ownership of the tomb by Achilles were still in doubt. But the statement is justified, since the size of the tomb has not yet been adjusted to fit the prestige of Achilles himself: on this point see the anchor comment at I.23.245–248 and 256–257. Achilles drives his chariot around the tomb three times, then rests in his klisiē ‘shelter’, I.24.017, and then drives around three times again, and so on. Each time he rests inside his shelter, he leaves the body outside, lying prone in the dust, face down, I.24.017–018. The body has been shown before in this same degraded state: see the comment on I.22.395–405. Once again here, it is left to the imagination whether the body is horribly disfigured. It cannot be known, however, whether the body that Achilles is intending to degrade has in fact already been disfigured. Once again, the face is not visible. But, once again, it will become clear that the face and the head and in fact the whole body of Hector cannot be disfigured. This time, the clarification happens immediately, in the verses that follow.

Once again, divine intervention prevents the disfigurement of Hector’s body. The intervention starts midline at I.24.018, and the narrative of the intervention extends through I.24.018: the god Apollo will not allow any aeikeiē ‘unseemliness’ to happen to the body of Hector, I.24.019. Apollo focuses here on Hector’s khrōs ‘complexion’, I.24.019, worrying that the hero’s skin will be grotesquely scraped away by the harsh surface over which it is being dragged behind the speeding chariot of Achilles, I.24.021. This time, the protective covering that is granted by the gods is not an enveloping glow, as it was at I.23.188–191 (see the anchor comment at I.23.184–191), but rather a mystical aigis ‘skin-shield’, I.24.020. Then, at I.24.022, by way of ring-composition, the thinking returns to the horrors of mutilation by way of ‘disfiguring’ the body, as expressed here by the verb aeikizein. But the disfigurement is canceled. Once again, the body is saved. See again the anchor comment at I.23.184–191, where the vision of salvation for Hector’s body is fully analyzed.

The gods pity Hector and are on the verge of sending Hermes to hide the corpse of Hector, but this plan is vetoed by Hērā and Poseidon, in that order. They bear a grudge against Troy and Priam because of an atē ‘aberration’ of Paris=Alexandros. But the narrative concentrates only on Hērā, since the atē ‘aberration’ that the Master Narrator has in mind involves a direct insult to that goddess. On the story of that insult, see the comment on the verses that immediately follow.

In the story about the Judgment of Paris, as we read in the plot-summary of the Cypria, Proclus 102.14–19 (ed. Allen 1912), Paris=Alexandros has to choose from among three goddesses, Hērā, Athena, and Aphrodite, Cypria/Proclus 102.14–19. Which of the three is supreme? Paris chooses Aphrodite, who rewards him by arranging his love affair with Helen. The story of the Judgment of Paris is recapitulated, in a most compressed form, here at I.24.025–030. And the story is told in terms of a contrast between positive and negative words. The fact that Paris chose Aphrodite means that he aimed negative words at Hērā and Athena, as expressed by the verb neikeîn ‘quarrel with’ at I.24.029 (νείκεσσε), while he aimed positive words at Aphrodite, as expressed by the verb aineîn ‘praise’ at I.24.030 (ᾔνησ᾽). As noted in the comment on I.03.100, the verbs aineîn ‘praise’ and neikeîn ‘quarrel with’ express both the social and the poetic significance of praise and blame respectively.

In the speech of Apollo here, Ι.24.032–054, there is a compressed retelling of unseemly deeds committed by Achilles. At Ι.24.050–052, the god condemns especially the violence of Achilles, and he points to the hero’s dragging the corpse of Hector, I.24.050–052, around the sēma ‘tomb’ of Patroklos, I.24.051. In this context of condemning the hero’s violence, the god compares him to a ravenous lion at I.24.041–043. The wild beast is driven by its wild instincts, described here as its biē ‘force, violence, strength’ and its thūmos ‘heart’, I.24.042, as it lunges to devour the sheep that it is attacking, and here the word dais ‘portion (of meat)’ is used in referring to the meat of its prey, I.24.43. There is an irony here in the use of the word dais, since this word is closely connected to stories about Achilles: see the comments on I.07.319–322, I.19.044, I.19.179–180. The picturing of a ravenous lion that is lunging for the meat of its prey is comparable to the use of the word sōma at I.03.023 and I.18.161: what is pictured in both these contexts is a carcass that is being devoured by a ravenous lion that holds on to it and won’t let go. Here is what I said about such contexts in Point 6 of the anchor comment for I.23.184–191: for wild animals, the sōma is something that must be saved for devouring, while for humans the sōma is something that must be saved from being devoured by wild animals. See also the comment on I.22.346–348, where I analyze other comparisons of Achilles to lions.

evidence for Zenodotus’ alternate reading οἰωνοῖσι τε δαῖτα (Athenaeus Epitome 12f) at Il. I.5

In the speech of Hērā here, Ι.24.055–063, we see a reference to a primal story that is connected to the Judgment of Paris. It is the story about the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, the mortal and immortal parents-to-be of Achilles. As we read in the plot-summary of the Cypria in Proclus 102.13–19 (ed. Allen 1912), there was eris ‘strife’ at the feast celebrating the marriage of Thetis and Peleus. It was the Will of Zeus that Eris ‘Strife’ personified would bring about a neikos ‘quarrel’ among the gods that would ultimately result in the Trojan War (Proclus 102.14/15 on Eris/neikos). Hērā notes that even Apollo attended the wedding, singing at the feast, Ι.24.062–063.

In the speech of Zeus here, Ι.24.064–076, an elaborate plan leads to a most elaborate plot for the conclusion of the Iliad.

Köhnken’s argument for inclusion of Odysseus in the dual construction preceding I.09.192, citing this passage and criticism of it

On this expression, see the comment at O.01.342.

Zeus tells Thetis to tell Achilles that the gods are angry at him and want him to release to Priam the body of Hector. In this case, the Will of Zeus becomes an unambiguous moral force for the maintenance of ritual correctness in the post-heroic age.

Thetis conveys the Will of Zeus to her son. Her role here in Iliad 24 is symmetrical with her role in Iliad 1.

See the anchor comment at O.07.256.

See the anchor comment at O.07.256.

the need of gods to intervene in Achilles’ mistreatment of Hektor’s corpse, given the principle that mēnis against Achilles has been suspended in the Iliad

Poseidon, Hera, and Athena’s persistence in their hatred of Trojans even when other gods decide Hermes should steal Hektor’s body back

comment of the workings of the principle of closure in the Iliad (esp. I.24), here regarding the Judgment of Paris

analysis of Apollo’s words on Achilles as echoing earlier lines concerning persons whose actions incur mēnis

comment on blood-relatives as more philoi than friends (as in this line) in the context of analyzing Ajax’s speech to Achilles in I.09, assuming that friends are more valuable than blood-relatives

Achilles’ apparent continuing of his antisocial behavior and refusal to let go after losing and mourning someone philos (comparison with situation in I.09.) vs. his immediate acquiescence to Thetis’ request (from Zeus)

comment of the workings of the principle of closure in the Iliad (esp. I.24), here regarding the Marriage of Peleus and Thetis

analysis of philotēs and timē going together with this passage as an example [MRBTP: 'ff']

analysis of Thetis’ speech to Achilles for the three things (food, sex, and death) that are central to his philotēs/solidarity with his fellow humans

Achilles’ apparent continuing of his antisocial behavior and refusal to let go after losing and mourning someone philos (comparison with situation in I.09.) vs. his immediate acquiescence to Thetis’ request (from Zeus)

analysis of Achilles’ decision to ransom Hektor as a reconfirmation of his solidarity with Zeus

analysis of the language affirming the rules of reciprocal exchange in Achilles’ ransoming Hektor/receiving Priam (Zeus’ words), with particular comment on endukeōs

analysis of thuoskoos as not a particularly prestigious occupation, in the context of analyzing Odysseus’ response to Leodes in O.22.321

postulation of the preservation, only in connection with Hector, of a phrase which might have once been hieratic (posis eukhomai/Vedic pátir … ohase), in the context of the analysis of the development of Greek posis compared with Vedic pati-

in a list of passages with eukhesthai + infinitive (aorist)

analysis of the attestations of eukhesthai + aorist infinitive (and the series to which this verse belongs)

analysis of the traditionality of the collocation of eukhesthai and spendein

analysis of the ambiguity in the meaning of eukhesthai in this verse (‘make a wish,’ ‘pledge, promise,’ ‘boast’), discussion of Benveniste’s analysis of the collocations of spendein and eukhesthai

analysis of the versatility of poetic technique to report prayers (invocation, grant of favor, request of favor)

analysis of the section I of the classification of the attestations of eukhesthai + dative (consistent inflection but apparently irregular metrical position of eukhesthai)

in a list of examples of eukhesthai + dative (sacral)

analysis of the development of the meaning of Latin spendō, in the context of analyzing the development of uoueō/eukhesthai

example of a transformation of the themes in a prayer, in the context of the analysis of composition by theme in prayers, which can be amplified or minimized according to circumstances

comment on eukhomenos and epos being traditionally and syntactically bound together, despite the separate existence of epos ēuda# as in this verse

example of a transformation of the themes in a prayer, in the context of the analysis of composition by theme in prayers, which can be amplified or minimized according to circumstances

Zeus' directive for Thetis to transmit to Achilles (24.75) is the third of four instances of pukinon epos in the Iliad (7.375, 11.788, 24.75, 24.744). When applied to speech, the adjective pukinon carries the sense of language that is dense with meaning and filled with urgency (Martin 1993:35).

The address that Hekabe makes to Priam as he leaves for Achilles' tent is explicitly presented in the language of lament ("she wailed [kōkusen], and answered with a muthos," 24.200). The speech starts with desperate rebukes of Priam's folly in going—a tone comparable to Andromakhe's lament at 24.743-45, chiding Hektor for not consoling her. Even more explicit is the call for others to join in her mourning, a theme found in Greek lament tradition. Hekabe concludes with a dramatization of her anger and grief: she could eat the liver of Achilles; only such violence would offer requital. In sum, the speech laments both her son, now dead, and her husband, whom she does not expect to see alive again (Martin 1993:87-88).

Given the male, heroic in-group orientation of the word muthos and its association with powerful self-presentation, it would seem to be a social taboo for women to employ this kind of speech. But both Hekabe and Helen, who also addresses Priam with a muthos at 3.166-80, are in fact enacting laments in the speeches labeled with this word. They fulfill an expected performance role, using a recognized genre of muthos as memory, but they are presented as doing so at unexpected times, to create dramatic effect (Martin 1993:87).

Helen's use is equally marked. When Priam on the wall asks her to name a hero below (3.166), she delays this identification and in her reply uses the language of lament, recalling her former home and wishing she had died when she followed Paris to Troy (3.171-80). The poet's use of the line Τὸν δ' Ελένη μύθοισιν ἀμείβετο, δῖα γυναικῶν keys an audience by the use of the word muthos to a graceful enactment of desire in the context of lament (Martin 1993:88).

These lamentations by Helen and Hekabe fulfill the conditions for performance found throughout the analysis of the three muthos genres: they are acts of self-presentation with an emphasis on extension and detail, in a public setting. It is, as well, the genre of lament in the context of larger memories that finally unites Achilles in thought with Priam and effects the closure of the Iliad, both men remembering their losses (Martin 1993:87).

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.

Zeus' full divine rhetoric shows itself in the muthos he makes to Thetis at 24.104-19. The subservience of the other Olympians emerges in details that contrast with the scene in Book 1: Hera serves Thetis now, instead of being a distant dissenter (contrast Hephaistos' service to her at 1.585-94). Zeus begins gently, recalling Thetis' anguish, something he himself knows. If the audience has been prepared to accept Zeus' sympathy as authentic, they have also been privileged to hear his earlier motives for summoning Thetis: he cannot let Hermes steal the corpse because the nymph is night and day beside her son (24.71-73), so he must convince her to persuade Achilles. When Zeus faces Thetis, he explains his motives much differently: "They urge the keen-sighted slayer of Argos to steal, but I grant this glory to Achilles, keeping safe your respect and affection in later time" (24.109-10). The audience is left wondering which version is more like the truth—who is being kept in the dark, Hera or Thetis? This is a paradigm for heroic rhetoric as well: through the depiction of muthos speeches among the gods, Homer illustrates the role of politic fiction in the poetics of power (Martin 1993:58-59).

For the ideal of Zeus' muthos commands, see the comment on Iliad 8.5-27.

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.